RE: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-26 Thread Leo Sutic
There must be a nit to pick *somewhere*... > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons > > public class Radar { > private int minRange; > private int maxRange; > > public Radar( int maxRange, int minRange ) > { >// easy to d

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Leo Simons
Leo Sutic wrote: and another good read! Is this all part of a "let's keep Berin around" campaign? :D summary: we want to write just a little bit of code to handle configuration, and with that, have strong validation of our invariants and other types of assertions. You highlight one way it cou

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Friday 23 January 2004 13:08, Leo Sutic wrote: I have also spent some thinking of the "boilerplate" configuration you are so concerned about. public class Radar { /** @configurable-property name="min-range" */ private int minRange; /** @configurable-property name="max-range" */

RE: Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Leo Sutic
> From: Alex Karasulu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Here's my random thoughts, > > Is there not a property change even mechanism in java beans > as well as as means to veto a property change if it is > constrained and the new value violates this constraint? If > so there's gotta be a role

Re: Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Alex Karasulu
Here's my random thoughts, Is there not a property change even mechanism in java beans as well as as means to veto a property change if it is constrained and the new value violates this constraint? If so there's gotta be a role for it to play in this situation. Also if the min value is set to ab

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Berin Loritsch
Leo Sutic wrote: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berin, welcome back! I knew you wouldn't be away for long. Not completely back. I am for some reason slow to unsubscribe from the dev list... -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserv

RE: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Leo Sutic
Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Berin, welcome back! I knew you wouldn't be away for long. /LS - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Berin Loritsch
Leo Sutic wrote: True, or with a checkInvariants() method that is called before and after each method. (DBC) It does assume that there is some two-step creation though: First create and set fields, then call the user-defined creation code. I believe this is how Spring or other "type 2" (I hate t

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Berin Loritsch
Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) wrote: -Mensagem original- De: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, *I* think this one is a winner. (Whether it is realized via XStream or attributes is not that relevant.) Which could be rewritten as Or addressed with this: p

RE: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Leo Sutic
True, or with a checkInvariants() method that is called before and after each method. (DBC) It does assume that there is some two-step creation though: First create and set fields, then call the user-defined creation code. /LS > From: Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) ---

Re: [RT] JavaBeans are even more evil than first thought

2004-01-23 Thread Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO)
-Mensagem original- De: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Well, *I* think this one is a winner. (Whether it is realized via > XStream > or attributes is not that relevant.) Which could be rewritten as public class Radar implements Initializable { private int minRange;